Skip to main content
Glama

List Issue Notes Tool

list_issue_notes_tool
Read-only

Fetches comments (notes) for a GitLab issue, with pagination and sorting controls to review issue discussion.

Instructions

List notes (comments) on an issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>"
    },
    "name": "list_issue_notes_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
sortNoSort direction (asc, desc)desc
order_byNoOrder by field (created_at, updated_at)created_at
per_pageNoResults per page, max 100 (default: 20)
issue_iidYesIssue internal ID
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_iid / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description's only added value is the synonym 'comments'. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering defaults, or permission requirements for private issues.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a paginated list endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the output schema covers return values, and the schema fully documents all six parameters, so the minimal description is largely sufficient. The only real omission is any hint that results are paginated and default-ordered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting page, per_page, sort, order_by, issue_iid and project_id. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (notes/comments) scoped to an issue, which distinguishes it from list_mr_notes_tool and create_issue_note_tool without naming them explicitly. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation in the text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_issue_note_tool or list_issues_tool, and no mention of pagination expectations. Usage is only inferable from the phrasing 'on an issue'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.